Not their content. Not their consistency. The niche itself couldn't support them.
Meanwhile, a creator we scored with 20K followers across multiple niches — no breakout hits, nothing "impressive" if you're scanning follower counts — is generating thousands in monthly revenue. Consistent brand deals. Higher CPMs. A niche where sponsors actively want to spend.
The 90K creator scored a 141 in our system. The 20K creator? 165. Higher commercial value, despite being roughly 4x smaller in audience.
The niche economics problem nobody talks about
Art and design content lives in a CPM desert. Advertisers don't bid aggressively for that audience. Brand deals in that space are rare, low-paying, and inconsistent. So even with solid viewership, the revenue per view is a fraction of what creators in other verticals earn.
This isn't a quality problem. It's a market structure problem. The same effort, the same skill, the same consistency — applied in a different niche — produces completely different financial outcomes.
Why this matters if you're a brand
When brands evaluate creators for campaigns, subscriber count is usually the first filter. Sometimes the only filter. And it feels logical. More followers, more reach, more impact. Right?
Not necessarily.
A subscriber in the finance niche is worth dramatically more to advertisers than a subscriber in the art niche. The purchase intent is different. The advertiser demand is different. The CPM structure is completely different.
90K Creator (Art Niche)
- 90K subscribers
- 50–100K views per video
- 1M+ video in catalog
- Low CPMs, sparse sponsors
- Score: 141
- Went back to school
20K Creator (High-CPM Niche)
- 20K followers
- No breakout hits
- Consistent, not viral
- Higher CPMs, active sponsors
- Score: 165
- Thousands in monthly revenue
Picking a 90K art creator over a 20K finance creator because "bigger audience" is like choosing a billboard on a quiet rural road over a small sign inside a busy shopping mall. The big number feels better. The small number converts better.
What we do differently
At Not Average, we map the real economics of each niche before recommending creator partnerships. We look at CPM ranges, sponsor density, audience purchase behavior, and category alignment.
CPM ranges vary wildly by niche
Finance, tech, and business niches can command 5–10x the CPMs of art, gaming, or entertainment. Same view count, radically different revenue.
Sponsor density determines deal flow
Some niches have dozens of brands actively competing for creator slots. Others have one or two, maybe. The creator's ability to monetize is capped by how many sponsors exist in their space.
Audience purchase behavior is the hidden variable
A viewer watching art tutorials has different purchase intent than a viewer watching business strategy. The latter is more likely to buy software, courses, or services — the exact things sponsors want to sell.
Because a creator who looks "small" on paper can deliver 3–5x the ROI of a "big" creator in the wrong niche.
The takeaway
The question isn't "how many people follow this creator?" It's "does this creator's niche economics match your brand's category?"
Stop sorting creators by size. Start sorting by niche-brand fit. The ROI gap between the two approaches is massive — and most brands are on the wrong side of it.
What's the biggest gap you've seen between a creator's audience size and their actual business results?